Patna High Court

Laddu Kumar @ Jayram @ Jayram MahtoversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 21 April 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

Provisional anticipatory bail was granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s antecedent and compliance with the stipulated bond and surety conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Laddu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act for the alleged recovery of 121.20 litres of liquor from an auto. He claimed he had a clean antecedent, was not in possession of the liquor, and was not the owner of the vehicle, asserting that the complaint was instigated by a watchman and a local resident. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offence. The Court granted provisional anticipatory bail, subject to a bond of Rs. 500 with two sureties, and directed the trial court to verify the petitioner’s criminal record within six weeks. If any antecedent is found, the bail would be cancelled; otherwise, it would be confirmed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Excise Act
Whether the petitioner’s alleged clean antecedent and lack of possession justify granting bail

Legislation cited

Bihar Negotiable Instruments (BNSS) — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Bihar Excise Act
Section 30(a)
Section 482
clean antecedent
liquor seizure
provisional bail

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25626 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2025 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi
                 ======================================================
                 Laddu Kumar @ Jayram @ Jayram Mahto S/O Late Chandeshwar Mahto R/O
                 Nuniya Toli, Janki Asthan, Chakmahila, P.S- Sitamarhi, Dist.- Sitamarhi.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Dwij Raj
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Ramesh Chandra
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   21-04-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Section 30(a) of the

                   Bihar Excise Act.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   recovery of 121.20 liters of liquor from an Auto.

                                4. Learned      counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner was not apprehended from the spot as such nothing

                   was recovered from his conscious possession and is not the

                   owner of the seized Auto and came to be implicated at the

                   instance of Chowkidar and local person, but then it is submitted

                   that if Chowkidar and local person were aware of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25626 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
                                            2/3




          involvement of the petitioner in the occurrence then why they

          did not inform the police prior to institution of the instant FIR

          which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution, when

          admittedly petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

          counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

          event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Trial Court

          within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

          Provisional anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

          500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with two sureties of the like

          amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where

          the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sitamarhi

          P.S. Case No. 455 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down

          under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

                       7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court

          shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the

          event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case

          then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of

          seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this

          Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be

          confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25626 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
                                                        3/3




                      person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional

                      anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.



                                                        (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…